easycure

Setlist? Well, he played quite a bit from the latest album, but in the end they’re all short tracks, they didn't take up much of the concert. I think the oldest piece he played was "Beautiful Schizophrenic," while he didn't do anything from Geek the Girl. Anyway, I tend to have a "holistic" view of things, :-) that's why I didn't care at all about naming the tracks.. Also, because for this concert, it would have been pointless.

But sanjuro, the message "tvtb" that you brought as an example is aimed specifically at communicating to one person, which art never does. Apart from this, I do not deny the validity of your argument at all, but we are venturing into such theoretical paths that it essentially leads me to conclude: so what are we discussing here for? :-) ..because it’s obvious that if each of us is expressing our opinion, we nonetheless believe in a more or less absolute criterion (or at least let’s say a historically motivated one) to define personality, originality, communicativeness, etc. It’s clear that Meneguzzi communicates a lot to many, but in his case, I really don't see any balance with any creative factor. The idea that this creative factor may not be definable absolutely could be something we agree on as well... but I reiterate that if there were not a minimum of implicit objectification, it would then be entirely useless to speak. Or at least it would be useless to talk about a work in itself, and one should only discuss methodology as such. On the other hand, you yourself say that the distinction can only be in "how" and not in "what." I absolutely agree with that in the end. My two previous posts refer to the "how." However, I think that by saying this, you contradict yourself a bit: because I can't believe that you don't have an idea of how this "how" should be (sorry for the repetition) and above all I cannot think that you do not implicitly believe that this idea of yours has references that make it "valid" at least partially "objectively." Regarding "Lynch, thanks": I completely agree with what you wrote as well: the difference is that I find your excellent analysis (especially the second part) in Mulholland Drive, while I think it can only be applied by people who are overall rather cultured and prepared like you seem to be, as well as in some cases probably intellectual professionals and various aesthetes for a film like "Inland Empire"; and for me, this is and remains a deformity.

Thank you! But don't worry, who cares about the average :-)

In fact, the greatness of art probably does not lie mechanistically in what is "more creative." Instead, it lies in the greatest possible balance between a form that conveys communication and the personality, uniqueness, and all the more so if possible the modernity of this communication. Thus, it lies in the meeting of creativity and form. If it were not so, if it had always and completely run free as a pure expression of pure creativity, then art could never have positioned itself as communication (essentially the way it was born, think of cave paintings), and thus it could never have positioned itself as culture, meaning as a sharing of a certain communicative vector. Because form, in essence, is this: culturally sharing a communicative way. This is where the division of music into the much-criticized "genres" makes sense (which I personally believe to be important because it is only through genre and its history that one can trace back to the socio-cultural roots of an expression). Furthermore, disregarding form, and therefore communication, and thus culture would be, let’s be clear, probably impossible for any human being who, as some enlightened schools of psychology teach, is first and foremost a "cultural animal" that primarily forms itself through stories, through the narrative of a certain cultural environment, and that appropriates the cognitive artifacts of this same environment. In short, I’m telling you that anyone who claims to break free from certain formal canons is merely presumptuous, because in reality, one cannot break free from them. From this, in the end, my judgment on Lynch remains unchanged. :-D

Because the fundamental point remains that art cannot be purely resolved into "free associations" or things like that. Creativity needs to be channeled. This is the only true reason for form. Channeled into a vector that, very obviously, communicates. If art runs free, it ends up being self-referential in the same way a formal exercise is like a flow of pure creativity. Thus you are still right: we should be more relativistic, but nonetheless the result would not change, the two extremes touch each other. Whether Lynch let his thoughts flow freely or consciously placed himself in the perspective of developing this film in the aforementioned manner is of little interest to me. And it interests me little because it is certainly not something provable, neither situation nor the other. I limit myself to the phenomenology of what I see: it is the result that I analyze.

Of course! But indeed the crux of my argument is not that the film itself lacks meaning. Rather, it is that this meaning is genuinely conveyed, truly perceivable without a questionable filter of presumptuous formalistic intellectualism and, above all, frankly aestheticism getting in the way. That is the point. Lynch is and will remain immense, but only as long as the NON-linearity of his style is tangible as expression, and not a priori imposed uncritically.

Oh, for sure! Have you seen Elephant Man?

ah ok galakordi; forgive me if I misunderstood (I hadn't read all the comments!) ..thank you for the "great" :-)

Beautiful

I didn't understand, galakordi: do you have to be a supporter of Berlusconi to not appreciate the ending? Quite the opposite, if anything! It's so predictable and trivial, but above all completely implausible, fitting perfectly into the Berlusconi logic: it's spectacularized and dramatic, it would only please the knight, such a waste of attention. Yet it’s obvious that something like this would never happen; the average Berlusconi voter essentially couldn't care less about political matters, they wouldn’t give a damn about storming a courthouse, just as they didn’t care, on the contrary, about the democracy that was trampled on multiple times during the previous government. What Moretti cleverly pretended not to understand is that there is nothing sensational about the dictatorship that we more or less subtly risked up until a year ago.